Friday, May 22, 2009

Same-Sex Marriage and Interracial Marriage

UPDATE. We continue to wait out the 5 day period in which anyone can contest Referendum 71. We are told that we will be required to print the entire text of SB 5688, which is about a hundred pages, on every petition. Clearly the printing expense will be significant. Thank you for your financial support._____________________

Same-Sex Marriage and Interracial Marriage

Isn't banning homosexuals from marriage just like banning interracial marriage? I've heard that and so have you.

In the discourse of the public debate about same-sex marriage, in nearly every case, if you oppose same-sex marriage, you are marked as homophobic, mean-spirited and bigoted.

Same-sex advocates often point out how interracial marriage was banned because of prejudice and ignorance, drawing comparables to those who oppose homosexual marriage today.

"We," they say, "are struggling against the same civil rights bigotry as African Americans and other ethnic minorities have experienced."

But are they?

This tone is reflected in the media, almost without exception, including in my discussion with Ken Schram on KOMO radio earlier this week.

And this is the tone that is asking people to, "Decline 2 Sign Referendum 71"---a new campaign from Equal Rights Washington. Most of the rhetoric from the "homosexual rights" side suggests or infers that if you oppose same-sex marriage, you are doing so because you are bigoted and you hate homosexuals.

You are prejudiced.

Not so.

People of faith can oppose homosexuality and it's advancement to deconstruct society by redefining marriage, without hating anyone, including homosexual advocates or those who practice it.

Here's why and why also, ethnicity is different than homosexuality.

There's been a fundamental shift in the debate over homosexual rights over the past number of years. The rhetoric has been changed to accommodate the advocates.

As homosexuals have purposely shifted the rhetoric, it has made any moral objection or criticism, even that given out of concern for the good of individuals or society seem unloving or cruel.

Mark Steyn, a writer and social critic, and not necessarily a supporter of our position on marriage, made an interesting point in 2003 in a Chicago Sun Times article titled, "There's No Stopping Them Now." He noted a simple shift in the words and language of the homosexual movement, and credited this shift with a rapid advancement of their agenda.

Senator Ed Murray, without identifying it, referred to this power shift in an interview with the Seattle Times just last week.

Steyn says that historically, moral concern for sexual activity between two persons of the same sex was identified as sodomy---an "act". An act, he says, is what it is.

Then Steyn explains in the late 19th century the act was re-described as a condition of certain persons, and was termed "homosexuality"---a condition a person was in.

A few decades ago he says homosexuality was upgraded again and now refers to a person's identity, so now we identify people as being "gay" or homosexuals.

Steyn writes:

"Each formulation raises the stakes. One can object to and even criminalize an act; one is obligated to be sympathetic toward a condition; but once it's a fully-fledged, 24/7 identity, like being Hispanic or Inuit, anything less than whole hearted acceptance gets you marked down as a bigot."

This is the basis of the case for homosexual marriage. Homosexuality is not genetic and is not equal to ethnicity.

SB 5688 and its cousins from the past few years were never really about domestic partnerships, but a carefully planned strategy of incremental steps to marriage. SB 5688 is marriage. Even the Seattle Times editorial board said, "give them the name" following the passage of the bill.

Senator Murray explained that concept to the Times only a few days ago and also said that the conversations with the public were going very well. He suggested the more homosexuals talked with the public, the better they understood the gay agenda and were willing to support redefining marriage.

He is saying that time is on their side because they have reframed the conversation.

Two thoughts.

First, their case is framed on a false premise. They have redefined the words of the public discourse, leading people to a false conclusion. You can reject the acts of homosexuality and the effort to enshrine them into law without hating the person or people. Remember homosexuality is an act. It does not equate with race or ethnicity.

Secondly, if time is helpful to advance the homosexual agenda, why would people who say they oppose homosexual marriage also be suggesting that we should wait a year or two to address a bill that provides for same-sex marriage?

If you have been persuaded to step back and not support Referendum 71, waiting for a better political time, please reconsider. There will not be a good time politically to address this issue.

If you feel empathy toward people and their families and are conflicted about denying or taking something from them, keep in mind that there are reasons why natural marriage has been honored and given special considerations. Marriage is not simply about people who love each other, but it is about providing a genetically connected mother and father to birth and raise children, caring and providing for the next generation. Should we reject the wisdom of history regarding marriage as being only between a man and a woman?

And should we compromise our belief in very clear biblical teaching on the matter of homosexual acts, in the spirit of trying to be fair and good?

Clearly we should not. However, that is not the true question. The proper question is, "Can I oppose the acts of homosexuality and its advancement in our culture without hating or rejecting a person?"

Yes. You can do both. You can reject the acts of homosexuality and their advancement, while caring and praying for those who commit the acts.

Whining about being called out on their anti-gay bigotry seems to be the new strategy of the anti-gay activists. Like NOM they seek to re frame the debate to paint themselves as victims of those, whom they wish to have legally enshrined as second-class citizens.

Reading this post can anyone doubt that, were the political situation to make it feasible, the pro-Referendum 71 forces would criminalize homosexuality? Can anyone seriously doubt that they would discriminate against LGBT people for who they are?

I cling to God, my guns, and the Bible, not just when I'm under pressure, but every day. According to Janet Napoletano, I'm a potential terrorist. So anything the rest of the left throws at me is nothing but blather.

I'm against the promotion of homosexuality by the government orany organization, group, or class,not because I don't want to see the people involved in that workpromoted, I do.

I just wish they would be moved upto higher levels in whatever they do, but that it happen when they put off the things that are destructive to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The homosexual agenda is destructive to America. How I wishthose who have been taken in by itwould be freely removed from it bytheir own free will, but such freedom comes only by Jesus Christ.

The things of darkness always bring a man into bondage causing him to become a slave to sin, for sin causes a soul to be changed not for the better but for the worse.

In such a condition man is helpless on his own for he has been overcome by spiritual powers that are greater than the strengh that the man has in himself.

Some give up and say, "I must havebeen made this way." and therebyseek a relief from the cause thatonly God can give by the Lord Jesus.

Sometimes the effects on the soulsof men take time to be healed. Sometimes God acts quickly and does miracles. Sometimes healing comes slowly and thereby we learnpatience and other virtues that weneed in order to be as God wants us to be. And if so be that we have been called to be citizens of his kingdom and to attain unto life eternal, then it is by his determination, perhaps more than ours at times that we will find ourselves at his predetermined condition and destination in whichall the things of the past have been forgiven, our souls cleansed,our bodies made new and ourselvescovered by that which will not fade away.

Sociologists have predicted the browning of America due to inter-racial marriage, that's no big deal, men and women have a right to marry who they choose regardless of skin color. What skin color will the offspring of gay marriage have?

Did you know that your straight marriage has been shaped more by "female marriages" (a contractual relationship between two women during the Victorian era in England) than the bible or anything else? The reason your wife has many of the rights she has can be directly correlated to "female marriages".

Sir, I know you think you know what you're talking about. But, with the upmost respectability, I must say that you have no idea.